[ 95] The defendants also rely on the doctrine of laches.
[ 96] The plaintiffs deny that their claims are statute-barred
and with respect to their battery claim, they also rely on the
recent and retroactive amendments to the Limitations Act, 2002.
The plaintiffs, in resisting the defence that their claims are
statute-barred, submit that the limitation period did not run
during their mental incapacity. The plaintiffs also rely on the
doctrines of discoverability and/or continuance of injury or damage. As I have already mentioned above, I shall only address the
plaintiffs’ argument that their claims are not statute-barred
under the former special and general limitation statutes that
may have applied up until 2000 when Ms. Taylor commenced
her proposed class action.
[ 97] Before providing the details of the six statutes that may
be applicable to bar the plaintiffs’ claims, it must be said, and it
must be kept in mind during the analysis that follows, that
for over a century, the Ontario legislature and legislatures
across the country have intended to provide doctors and other
health care practitioners with very extensive protection for
actions by their patients about claims arising from professional
practice and from providing medical treatment or services.
[ 98] As examples of where claims against doctors have been
found to be statute-barred, see Miller v. Ryerson (1892), 22 O.R.
369,  O.J. No. 139 (Div. Ct.) (treatment causing deafness
in child); Boase v. Paul,  O.R. 625,  O.J. No. 463
(C.A.) (unconsented extraction of teeth); McBain v. Laurentian
Hospital,  O.J. No. 2289, 35 C.P.C. 292 (H.C.J.) (foot surgery without consent); Fishman v. Waters,  M.J. No. 217,
4 D.L.R. (4th) 760 (C.A.) (disfigurement from cosmetic surgery);
Vincent v. Hall (1985), 49 O.R. (2d) 701,  O.J. No. 2303
(H.C.J.) (arm amputation without consent of burn victim);
Martin v. Perrie,  1 S.C.R. 41,  S.C.J. No. 1 (
removable of suture ten years after surgery); Hadley v. Allore (1987),
63 O.R. (2d) 208,  O.J. No. 36 (C.A.) (unauthorized tubal
ligation); Clark v. Naqui,  N.B.J. No. 1003, 63 D.L.R. (4th)
361 (C.A.) (unauthorized surgery); Perez (Litigation Guardian
of) v. Salvation Army of Canada (1997), 37 O.R. (3d) 447, 
O.J. No. 5044 (Gen. Div.), affd (1998), 42 O.R. (3d) 229,
 O.J. No. 5126 (C.A.) (unattended psychiatric patient
at hospital smashing window and falling to death); Beatty v.
Waters,  M.J. No. 141, 2002 MBQB 100 (Master) (
unauthorized type of breast implant); Soper v. Salvation Army Scarborough Grace Hospital,  O.J. No. 427 (S.C.J.) (unattended
psychiatric patient smashing window and injuries misdiagnosed